[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H4911-H4917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SCIENCE EDUCATION
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend
the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 366)
expressing the sense of Congress that increasing American capabilities
in science, mathematics, and technology education should be a national
priority.
[[Page H4912]]
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 366
Whereas the economic competitiveness of the Nation depends
on strong science, mathematics, and technology capabilities
throughout the workforce;
Whereas the need for improvement in education is acute in
the areas of science, mathematics, and technology;
Whereas our national competitiveness strategy must include
the goals of--
(1) ensuring that all young persons achieve a level of
technological literacy adequate to prepare them for the
demands of a scientific and technologically oriented society;
and
(2) fulfilling the need for a deep pool of talented
American leaders in science and technological research and
development;
Whereas numerous research reports indicate the Nation is
not achieving these goals;
Whereas the most recent United States National Assessment
of Educational Progress reveals that a majority of those 17
years of age are poorly equipped for informed citizenship and
productive performance in the workplace;
Whereas by 2016, 35.4 percent of our workforce will be
comprised of minority workers, and 46.6 percent will be
women; and
Whereas women and minorities continue to be underserved by
and underrepresented in science and mathematics: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) this Nation should dedicate its resources to the
development of a broad pool of citizens who are functionally
literate in science, mathematics, and technology;
(2) a national science education policy in the coming
decade should address the crucial need areas of--
(A) substantially increasing science scholarships and
providing adequate financial resources to permit students
from underrepresented populations to study science,
mathematics, and technology; and
(B) actively involving National Science Foundation
involvement in curriculum development with strong emphasis on
reinforcing science and mathematics concepts at each grade
level; and
(3) this national challenge can be met through strong
leadership from the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy; other Federal, State, and local
governments; and with long-term commitments from the civic,
business, and engineering communities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hall) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
General Leave
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and
extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on House
Concurrent Resolution 366 now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 366,
expressing the sense of Congress that increasing American capabilities
in science, math and technology education should be a national
priority. Our Nation's youth are key to our Nation's future prosperity.
And I have schools in my district that are ranking very high; 1, 2, 3
and 4. They've been 1 and 2 and now they're 2 and 4. That's called the
Townview Gifted and Talented school, ranked second in the Nation; was
considered the best public school last year in the nation. And the
Science and Engineer Magnet was ranked fourth this year, and it was
number 2 last year by Newsweek magazine.
Townview's School of Talented and Gifted was always ranked among the
best high schools in America, and this year, by the U.S. News and World
Report.
In support from the high tech industry such as Texas Instruments in
Dallas, as well as other local generous investors which have been
critical to setting up the schools for the students' success.
Unfortunately, few schools demonstrate the educational excellence of
Townview, not even any more in Dallas. Congress must incentivize
investments at the local level to help improve the quality of public
education.
The UTeach Program, which started in Texas and headquartered at the
University of Texas in Austin, is a terrific education program that
places engaged, highly trained teachers in the classroom. These
educators, in turn, inspire their students. Young people are learning
that math and science are fun. They're learning that these subjects are
important, and that they can lead to fulfilling and profitable careers.
UTeach is funded partially by generous investments from the private
sector which needs these people for future employment. So we consider
it an investment for them.
UTeach has tracked the success of its educational model, and it is
transforming the quality of math and science education in schools that
it touches. Demonstrated methods of success must be supported and
expanded, and this is critical for our Nation.
Tomorrow's high-tech jobs will require a skilled workforce. Today's
students are not being adequately prepared for these jobs, and it is my
fear that businesses will increasingly look toward China, Taiwan, Japan
and India for their workforce needs. Those nations are investing a
greater percentage of their gross national product on the education of
scientists, mathematicians and engineers. They're producing a large
workforce of bright, young, talented individuals who work for less
money than our citizens will. American companies are already hiring
them. And the only solution is to produce a better prepared work force.
The root of that preparation is education. And it is too serious and
too important not to give the utmost attention.
Mr. Speaker, I wish that every school could get the support and
perform as well as Townview does. But my resolution expresses a sense
of Congress that we must make education a much higher national
priority.
A couple of years ago there was a publication by the National
Academies of Science and Medicine and the National Science Foundation
entitled the Rising Tide Before the Gathering Storm. Well, the
gathering storm of international competition is already here, and so we
must reform our public education policies, provide greater challenges
to our students and give young people the tools and opportunities that
they need to succeed. Our economy in this country depends on this; and
we start with well-prepared teachers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1315
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House
Concurrent Resolution 366. This resolution expresses the sense of
Congress that increasing American capabilities in science and
mathematics and technology education should be a national priority, and
I couldn't agree more. I gladly support the gentlelady from Texas's
resolution.
The Science Committee recognized a few years ago that this Nation
needed to make American capabilities in STEM education a priority. Our
current chairman, Mr. Gordon, along with then-Chairman Sherry Boehlert
requested the report that was to become the ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm'' report to which we have so often referred in this
Congress. As a result of this report, the President came out with his
American Competitive Initiative; and this Congress passed, and the
President signed, the America COMPETES Act, which specifically
addresses the concerns raised in this resolution.
In COMPETES, we're dedicating resources to create a broad pool of
citizens who are literate in STEM subjects and we are increasing
science scholarships and providing financial resources to attract
underrepresented populations to STEM fields. Likewise, NSF is funding
tremendous STEM education curriculum work in all grades, and OSTP and
other Federal agencies, like the Department of Education, are providing
strong leadership as appropriate at the Federal level.
A few weeks ago, I held a hearing in Texarkana, Texas at the Martha
and Josh Morriss Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School, a 100
percent locally funded public school that focuses on inspiring our
young children to excel in math and science at an early age and
hopefully keep them interested all the way through college.
[[Page H4913]]
This school is a prime example of the kind of leadership and commitment
necessary at the local level and included input from several groups,
businesses, the academic community, and parents.
However, there is always room for improvement, and we should strive
to do more. In fact, it's imperative that we do more if we're to remain
the world leader in innovation and technology.
I urge my colleagues to support the resolution introduced by my good
friend, Ms. Johnson.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and
commend my colleague, Eddie Bernice Johnson, for introducing it and the
chairman of the Science Committee for bringing it forward.
This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that increasing
American capabilities in science, mathematics, and technology education
should be a national priority. And I must say, I hope Members on the
other side of this aisle will avoid distracting us with red herrings
across the trail and debating other diverting matters such as drilling
and digging in the United States and stick to this topic which is of
critical importance.
Since first coming to Congress almost a decade ago, I stressed the
need for a new major national effort to improve science, mathematics,
and technology education. I'm a product of the science revolution in
the United States that occurred following the launch of Sputnik in
1957. And today, as this resolution notes, we must recommit ourselves
to creating a new generation of scientists, engineers, and
mathematicians, and just as important, indeed more important, we need
to build a general public that is literate and comfortable with
science, math, technology.
I would ask at this point to include in the Record a copy of a recent
op-ed essay entitled ``Put a Little Science in Your Life'' by Brian
Greene, professor of physics at Columbia and author of The Elegant
Universe. He discusses the importance of science in everyone's lives,
not just scientists.
[From the New York Times, June 1, 2008]
Put a Little Science in Your Life
(By Brian Greene)
A couple of years ago I received a letter from an American
soldier in Iraq. The letter began by saying that, as we've
all become painfully aware, serving on the front lines is
physically exhausting and emotionally debilitating. But the
reason for his writing was to tell me that in that hostile
and lonely environment, a book I'd written had become a kind
of lifeline. As the book is about science--one that traces
physicists' search for nature's deepest laws--the soldier's
letter might strike you as, well, odd.
But it's not. Rather, it speaks to the powerful role
science can play in giving life context and meaning. At the
same time, the soldier's letter emphasized something I've
increasingly come to believe: our educational system fails to
teach science in a way that allows students to integrate it
into their lives.
Allow me a moment to explain.
When we consider the ubiquity of cellphones, iPods,
personal computers and the Internet, it's easy to see how
science (and the technology to which it leads) is woven into
the fabric of our day-to-day activities. When we benefit from
CT scanners, M.R.I. devices, pacemakers and arterial stents,
we can immediately appreciate how science affects the quality
of our lives. When we assess the state of the world, and
identify looming challenges like climate change, global
pandemics, security threats and diminishing resources, we
don't hesitate in turning to science to gauge the problems
and find solutions.
And when we look at the wealth of opportunities hovering on
the horizon--stem cells, genomic sequencing, personalized
medicine, longevity research, nanoscience, brain-machine
interface, quantum computers, space technology--we realize
how crucial it is to cultivate a general public that can
engage with scientific issues; there's simply no other way
that as a society we will be prepared to make informed
decisions on a range of issues that will shape the future.
These are the standard--and enormously important--reasons
many would give in explaining why science matters.
But here's the thing. The reason science really matters
runs deeper still. Science is a way of life. Science is a
perspective. Science is the process that takes us from
confusion to understanding in a manner that's precise,
predictive and reliable--a transformation, for those lucky
enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. To
be able to think through and grasp explanations--for
everything from why the sky is blue to how life formed on
earth--not because they are declared dogma but rather because
they reveal patterns confirmed by experiment and observation,
is one of the most precious of human experiences.
As a practicing scientist, I know this from my own work and
study. But I also know that you don't have to be a scientist
for science to be transformative. I've seen children's eyes
light up as I've told them about black holes and the Big
Bang. I've spoken with high school dropouts who've
stumbled on popular science books about the human genome
project, and then returned to school with newfound
purpose. And in that letter from Iraq, the soldier told me
how learning about relativity and quantum physics in the
dusty and dangerous environs of greater Baghdad kept him
going because it revealed a deeper reality of which we're
all a part.
It's striking that science is still widely viewed as merely
a subject one studies in the classroom or an isolated body of
largely esoteric knowledge that sometimes shows up in the
``real'' world in the form of technological or medical
advances. In reality, science is a language of hope and
inspiration, providing discoveries that fire the imagination
and instill a sense of connection to our lives and our world.
If science isn't your strong suit--and for many it's not--
this side of science is something you may have rarely if ever
experienced. I've spoken with so many people over the years
whose encounters with science in school left them thinking of
it as cold, distant and intimidating. They happily use the
innovations that science makes possible, but feel that the
science itself is just not relevant to their lives. What a
shame.
Like a life without music, art or literature, a life
without science is bereft of something that gives experience
a rich and otherwise inaccessible dimension.
It's one thing to go outside on a crisp, clear night and
marvel at a sky full of stars. It's another to marvel not
only at the spectacle but to recognize that those stars are
the result of exceedingly ordered conditions 13.7 billion
years ago at the moment of the Big Bang. It's another still
to understand how those stars act as nuclear furnaces that
supply the universe with carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, the raw
material of life as we know it.
And it's yet another level of experience to realize that
those stars account for less than 4 percent of what's out
there--the rest being of an unknown composition, so-called
dark matter and energy, which researchers are now vigorously
trying to divine.
As every parent knows, children begin life as uninhibited,
unabashed explorers of the unknown. From the time we can walk
and talk, we want to know what things are and how they work--
we begin life as little scientists. But most of us quickly
lose our intrinsic scientific passion. And it's a profound
loss.
A great many studies have focused on this problem,
identifying important opportunities for improving science
education. Recommendations have ranged from increasing the
level of training for science teachers to curriculum reforms.
But most of these studies (and their suggestions) avoid an
overarching systemic issue: in teaching our students, we
continually fail to activate rich opportunities for revealing
the breathtaking vistas opened up by science, and instead
focus on the need to gain competency with science's
underlying technical details.
In fact, many students I've spoken to have little sense of
the big questions those technical details collectively try to
answer: Where did the universe come from? How did life
originate? How does the brain give rise to consciousness?
Like a music curriculum that requires its students to
practice scales while rarely if ever inspiring them by
playing the great masterpieces, this way of teaching science
squanders the chance to make students sit up in their chairs
and say, ``Wow, that's science?''
In physics, just to give a sense of the raw material that's
available to be leveraged, the most revolutionary of advances
have happened in the last 100 years--special relativity,
general relativity, quantum mechanics--a symphony of
discoveries that changed our conception of reality. More
recently, the last 10 years have witnessed an upheaval in
our understanding of the universe's composition, yielding
a wholly new prediction for what the cosmos will be like
in the far future.
These are paradigm-shaking developments. But rare is the
high school class, and rarer still is the middle school
class, in which these breakthroughs are introduced. It's much
the same story in classes for biology, chemistry and
mathematics.
At the root of this pedagogical approach is a firm belief
in the vertical nature of science: you must master A before
moving on to B. When A happened a few hundred years ago, it's
a long climb to the modern era. Certainly, when it comes to
teaching the technicalities--solving this equation, balancing
that reaction, grasping the discrete parts of the cell--the
verticality of science is unassailable.
But science is so much more than its technical details. And
with careful attention to presentation, cutting-edge insights
and discoveries can be clearly and faithfully communicated to
students independent of those details; in fact, those
insights and discoveries are precisely the ones that can
drive a
[[Page H4914]]
young student to want to learn the details. We rob science
education of life when we focus solely on results and seek to
train students to solve problems and recite facts without a
commensurate emphasis on transporting them out beyond the
stars.
Science is the greatest of all adventure stories, one
that's been unfolding for thousands of years as we have
sought to understand ourselves and our surroundings. Science
needs to be taught to the young and communicated to the
mature in a manner that captures this drama. We must embark
on a cultural shift that places science in its rightful place
alongside music, art and literature as an indispensable part
of what makes life worth living.
It's the birthright of every child, it's a necessity for
every adult, to look out on the world, as the soldier in Iraq
did, and see that the wonder of the cosmos transcends
everything that divides us.
There is no denying that America is losing ground and global
competitiveness to countries that are making the necessary investments
in education and research and development. We owe our current economic
strength, our current national security, our current quality of life,
to the investments of past generations.
However, the Federal Government has failed to fund adequately
research, development, and innovation. Investment in these areas
ensures that American people will continue to benefit from
opportunities of the rapidly growing global economy and its inherent
foundations.
In August of 2007, this body passed into law, as my colleague from
Texas pointed out, a comprehensive competitiveness package, the America
COMPETES Act, which was based on disturbing findings of the National
Academies' report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' that our
Nation is severely underinvesting in engineering and the physical
sciences.
Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2008 budget fell short of the required
goal. Without taking a bold, different approach in this year's
appropriation cycle, Congress will be delivering a blow to our future
economic security and competitiveness.
I thank gentlelady for introducing this legislation. I hope we pay
heed.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I apologize to my friend from New Jersey because, if we
are not talking about the number one issue in America on the floor of
the House, then what are we here for? Science and technology is
critical to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. Science and
technology will bring us to a new era where we don't have to rely on
the energy supplies of the past. So I concur, and I support this
resolution, and I'm glad people are debating it.
But you know what the people in America are debating. You know it.
Everybody was home during the last 10 days. They're talking about this,
and this is what we ought to be doing. You mentioned in your discussion
that we don't have the funds. Well, if we went into ANWR, which is the
size of the State of South Carolina and had a drilling path that formed
the size of Dulles Airport or a football field and put a postage stamp
on that, we've got the revenues. Just with the royalties from ANWR we
could fund science and technology. In fact, we're going to have a
resources bill on the floor that's going to address at least the pay-
for, which was a method to address Mr. DeFazio's issue on leases.
Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, I will.
So we're willing to talk about this, but golly, if we're not talking
about energy and the price of gasoline at the pump, then what are we
doing?
Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HOLT. Quite simply, the reason gasoline prices are so high
today--of course there is international speculation--is there's demand
from other countries; there's the falling value of the dollar.
Principally, it is because, in past decades, we failed to wean
ourselves from fossil fuels. We have failed to make the investment in
research and development that would make that possible. You're talking
about drilling in Alaska.
Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. HOLT. If I may continue.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, you may. I'm just going to debate.
If we had the resources from the royalties on oil and gas exploration
in the outer continental shelf or if we had the resources from the
royalties from ANWR, we would have the money to be able to segue into a
national debate on solar, on wind, on biotechnology, on the
nanotechnology. There is a whole pot of money out there. A lot of
people in America think that we have no fossil fuels, no energy
resources left in this country. So this is the problem. I mean you kind
of identified it, but when a barrel of crude oil is $23 in January 2001
and in January 2006 it goes up double and now it's up double again,
that's the problem.
We have to have a long-term and a short-term strategy. Our debate is
the science and technology. That's a long-term debate. But what do we
do about easing the cost of the high food prices, which is in direct
correlation to energy costs? We're talking about schools. What is the
number one problem in schools today? Diesel prices for school buses has
doubled. Energy costs for heating and cooling are doubling. That goes
to the local taxpayer. So we ought to be talking about this.
Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to my friend.
Mr. HOLT. It's the wrong argument. We are here to talk about the
future that we will get from investment in research and development.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, we want to talk about the future,
but what our constituents are talking about is the present. There has
been more than $1.68 increase in gasoline prices. How can we even send
our kids to the university if energy costs have doubled? We should have
both debates, and we should not be afraid to talk about how to get out
of this problem.
Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HOLT. We will not get out of this problem by doing more of the
same that we have been doing.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, you all want to do no exploration,
no gas, no coal, no nuclear, which brings costs up. We're saying let's
bring on more supply. Let's mitigate the cost. Let's plan for the
future. We are talking about now. We are not talking about 30, 40 years
from now. We need to talk about that debate. Your committee is a great
committee to talk about the future, but we have got $123 a barrel of
crude oil today. No nanotechnology, no recognizing science and
education is going to bring that cost down.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr.
Lipinski from Illinois.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution
that we are right now talking about on the floor, and I want to commend
my colleague from Texas for introducing this legislation. My
constituents certainly understand that we need to both look at problems
that are facing us right now, today, and also we need to plan for the
future or else we wind up in situations like we're facing today.
As vice chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, as
well as a former college professor and engineer and husband of a
credentialed actuary, I became aware of the need to invest in STEM
education for young Americans. Providing high-quality jobs for
hardworking Americans must be our top priority. In order to accomplish
that, we must be proactive.
The necessary first step is an improved STEM education in schools
because an educated workforce is the foundation for economic strength.
For generations, science and engineering have been the base of
America's economic growth. We were leaders in the industrial
revolution, and we initiated the Internet age. Today, these fields
continue to have great potential for growing our economy and employing
more Americans.
Between 1983 and 2004, the percentage of the U.S. workforce in
science and engineering occupations almost doubled. Ground-breaking
discoveries in innovative technologies are continually creating new
industries and opportunities. Nanotechnology, which we just discussed
in the reauthorization of the NNI, is just one of the many exciting
industries that are revolutionizing the international economy.
[[Page H4915]]
However, if we are not careful, America will be left behind in future
technological revolutions. This fact was highlighted nationally when
the National Academy of Sciences released its ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm'' report which emphasized the need for the government
to improve science, technology, engineering, and math for STEM
education. In the 110th Congress, we confronted this challenge head on
by enacting the America COMPETES Act. But additional measures to
improve our global standing are still needed.
The resolution before us today will assist the United States in
dedicating its resources to the STEM field and in promoting science
education policy by educating a broad pool of Americans in these
critically important fields. These areas are vital to America's
economic competitiveness, and this resolution will help to ensure a
vital future for next generation of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, we have challenges ahead of us, but the American people
have always succeeded in conquering their greatest challenges. With
this resolution, we will get that and ensure that all American students
receive the skills and knowledge required for success in the 21st
century workforce.
I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution to plan for
the future and plan for a brighter future for America. This resolution
helps us to do that.
{time} 1330
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
use, subject to the amount of time I have left. Could you tell me how
much time I have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 12\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the Speaker.
The gentleman from New Jersey keeps talking about doing away with
fossil fuels. You know, that's just almost laughable. You do away with
fossil fuels today, a year from today, 2 years from today, 5 years from
today, 10 years from today, turn these lights out, cut out your air
conditioners, forget about driving up to anywhere to get gasoline or
oil, forget about building the roads, heating and cooling, just shut
her all down, forget about it, and forget about that 40 percent we get
from a Nation that doesn't trust us, Saudi Arabia, that's all fossil
fuels. We have no control over them.
Sure, we ought to have technology to address fossil fuels to make it
cleaner, but we're whistling Dixie if we think we're going to do away
and do without fossil fuels.
It's easy to condemn and not trust the oil and gas people, but
without them, we wouldn't have the lights we're using right today. We
wouldn't have the gasoline that's in our cars, the money that it takes
to build asphalt roads, and I could go on down the list forever.
Where do you think 40 percent of that comes from? Saudi Arabia.
Another 20 percent from other Arab Nations just like Saudi Arabia that
don't trust us and we don't trust them. That's what it's all about. We
can't do without fossil fuels. That's foolishness.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's high-time that we realize that we have to
work together and seek technology to lessen the effect of carbons and
be sensible about it, be reasonable about it, but we can't just shut
this off and condemn those that are producing, the men and women in the
oil industry that are producing the lights that we share today and
cleaning the air that we have today.
We need to keep looking for technology to make it better and cleaner,
but it's foolish to talk about doing away with it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to have as much time as he may
consume to speak on this issue.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady for her generous grant of time.
There might be some small grounds for agreement here. I did hear both
the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from New Jersey, and
particularly the gentleman from Illinois, in talking in support of the
legislation that's actually before us, which does not pertain to gas
and oil prices or supply in any way, saying we needed and he supported
the idea of research, investment, and education, and moving toward new
technologies.
The gentleman from New Jersey talked about a transition from a
petroleum-based economy. I think there's some grounds, small grounds,
for agreement there.
But I guess, and I think most American people would agree with that,
they know we can't, you know, drill big and burn our way out of this
problem. We've got to cut our dependence to OPEC and other foreign
sources of oil, and we've got to mitigate the damage on our economy.
But then that's where the disagreement starts because mitigating the
damage to consumers today means taking some tough votes in this House
of Representatives. One tough one was May 20 of last year, rollcall
332. Now, that seemed a no-brainer to me, but it was really tough on
the Republican side, and the gentleman from Illinois voted against it.
It was to have the Justice Department, United States Justice
Department, investigate collusion by the OPEC Nations to unnecessarily
constrain supply and drive up the price for American consumers. That
was a tough vote for the gentleman from Illinois. He voted ``no.'' He
didn't think the Justice Department should investigate. I also have a
bill saying the President should file a complaint against the OPEC
countries in the WTO.
You know, the Bush administration, in fact, is now investigating
collusion by OPEC. They still haven't filed a complaint in the WTO. So
the Bush administration is taking a step that the gentleman from
Illinois opposed, investigating collusion which is gouging consumers.
We need a new energy future, but we don't need to allow our consumers
to be price gouged on the way there.
Mr. Wu raised another issue which the gentleman just brushed off,
which is the whole issue that credible analysts say, because of the
Enron loophole--remember, Ken Boy? He might be dead but his memory
lives on, and about 50 cents a gallon for the American people. Ken Boy
Lay of Enron, one of the President's best buddies, got a special
loophole from this Republican Congress deregulating derivatives in
energy trading so that they could speculate. Well, he's dead, Enron's
bankrupt, but the speculation is rampant.
And experts tell us probably 50 cents on every gallon, 50 cents on
every gallon today, you want to give immediate relief, reregulate the
commodities market. You're not regulating the price of gas. You're just
saying you can't have derivatives and you can't have Morgan Stanley
holding more futures contracts and more fuel than ExxonMobil. Just
reregulate the market. They can't self-deal. Just reregulate the
market. Just bring some regular trading back to that market that
existed before 2000. You could save tomorrow 50 cents a gallon.
Now, you can talk about ANWR, and he talked about it with great
certainty. I've been sitting in on debates for 20 years over ANWR. One
well was drilled. What was there we don't know. It was proprietary.
There are estimates from a little bit to a lot of oil. But he knows
exactly how much is there, interesting, and how much revenue it would
bring, even more interesting, since right now oil from Alaska can and
is being exported from the United States of America. I guess he's
worried about the Chinese energy problem because that's most likely
where any additional supply from Alaska would go until we develop more
refinery capacity, which the industry refuses to do. And there are ways
to drive them to make that investment, but the gentleman doesn't
support that legislation either, which I've introduced.
So we're hearing a lot of bloviating and talk on that side of the
aisle because Republicans are running scared because their coffers have
been filled by this industry for years and they were put into power and
Bush was put into the White House and Dick Cheney was put into the Vice
President's mansion by this industry. And this industry is kind of
unpopular right now.
So they want to pretend they want to do something 10, 15, 20 years
out. Let's even bring it a little closer in. The gentleman again talked
about ANWR. Well, right just a little way away from ANWR, guess what,
there's something Bill Clinton leased called the Naval Petroleum
Reserve. We know there's oil
[[Page H4916]]
under that. Bill Clinton leased it. Bill Clinton's been gone seven-and-
a-half years. How time flies.
How many producing wells are there in the Naval Petroleum Reserve
drilled by American companies who have leased that reserve? None, not
one, not a single one.
So, if the need is to get more production going in Alaska, how about
they drill the wells in the Naval Petroleum Reserve where we know
there's oil as opposed to pretending there might be oil in ANWR, and we
could drill way over there, and it's also a lot further from the
existing pipeline and other shipping capabilities.
So there's a heck of a lot of stuff, as I said earlier in my 45-
second response--I regret I didn't have time at that point to yield to
the gentleman. He's not here now. I would have given him at least 30
seconds--to develop out there, but the industry isn't developing it.
Ten thousand permits that haven't been actuated, and they start talking
about Illinois.
These Federal leases aren't in Illinois. I'm not aware of any Federal
leases in Illinois for oil exploration. These are off the coast where
80 percent of the supply is accessible through existing leases. The
industry just hasn't seen fit to develop it. Why not? Because it's
working really well for them right now. Record prices. They don't
really care about supply. They sure as heck don't want more supply to
bring down the price.
Plain and simple, they're extorting the American people. They're
extorting through collusion with OPEC. They're extorting through
speculation in the energy markets, and they're extorting by withholding
their drilling from leases they already have while pretending they need
more. Plain and simple, it's a scam.
And I'm really disappointed that the gentleman is going to oppose my
bill later when he talks about all the revenue that could be realized,
when right now royalty-free oil is flowing out of the gulf because of a
bureaucratic error, and he doesn't want to fix that problem because he
thinks the oil companies need the money more than my counties and
schools, and we'll hear more about that later.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop) 3 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the comments that have been made so
far. I'm reminded by President Reagan, who once said there you go
again, and some of those statements can apply here.
But one statement was they aren't accurate, but what we are talking
about here in this part of the discussion deals with how real people
are impacted in their daily lives.
We no longer are talking about energy consumption as an ethereal
process or whether it meets different needs, kind of a policy concept.
We're talking about how people, real people, bake their food, heat
their homes, and how they keep their jobs.
For every dollar that there is an increase in oil prices and gasoline
prices, it simply means that jobs are lost, that revenue does not flow
here. Social Security programs are diminished, and the overall quality
of life is diminished. We're talking about real people and how real
people are impacted.
For every dollar a poor person or a middle-income person has to spend
on increased energy consumption, that's a dollar they cannot spend on
luxuries like tuna casserole. This is what we're talking about. If
you're extremely rich, you can try and buy your way out of it like an
old medieval duke buying indulgences from the Catholic church. But for
middle-income people and poor people, we are talking about how they
live their lives, and we're talking about a country that has more
energy potential locked up than other Nations have in their entire
countries.
That's the concept that is here, and yet we always come back to picky
little reasons why we can't develop the source, renew that source or
build on that particular source as well.
We can't develop in ANWR because even though the Carter
administration set this particular piece of property aside for energy
development because it offends somebody. We can't have windmills off
the coast of Massachusetts; it doesn't look right. We can't drill off
the coast of Florida because it might offend the tourists someway.
We all have picky little reasons on why we can't do it, and the net
product is we harm our own people because we don't have a policy that
provides a positive reinforced policy, a strong program that will
encourage conservation but also encourage production of every source of
resources that we have at our disposal.
It has to happen and it has to happen now because we're dealing with
real people.
We're also dealing with the security of this country. Early on this
floor, they talked about an element of section 526 that was passed in
the energy bill which simply had the proposal of cutting out the needs
of our military in their advancement for alternative synthetic fuels.
That's one of the things we're looking at. Five years ago, it cost us
$2 billion a year for petroleum for our military. Today, we're talking
about $12 billion a year. We cannot do that any longer. Those are the
issues we have to have.
We have to realize that what we're talking about is real people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Who we are hurting are real people, and those
people who are in the middle income and those people who are on the
edges of our society and those people on fixed incomes, which is about
45 million Americans, those are the ones who get hurt first.
And the more we talk about the philosophy, what should or should not
be done, and the later we decide to take as our policy statement that
we will become energy secure and energy independent and we will develop
all the resources we have at our disposal to become energy independent,
that's when we actually decide to try and help people.
I thank the Speaker for his indulgences.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. We reserve the balance.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 7 minutes.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. McHenry) 3 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. I rise today to agree with the resolution, but the real
substance of the debate on the House floor today should be about gas
prices. That is the substance of what we should be talking about as a
people because I know my constituents are talking about it. They
commute to work each day and pay and pay and pay high gas prices every
day. And it is because this Congress hasn't acted.
Now, certainly the resolution calling for more math and science
students, that's well and good, but what we should be talking about
right now is how we're going to become energy independent as Americans,
how we use American resources, whether it's natural gas, petroleum
products, energy research, how are we going to invest in those things
now.
This Congress, this Democrat leadership has failed to act, and I
think that's irresponsible.
{time} 1345
You know, one answer that they say is conservation. That's what some
on the other side of the aisle say is the answer. And, you know,
conservation is a sign of personal virtue, but we cannot conserve our
way to energy independence, American energy independence.
So what do we do? Well, I believe we have to use our technology and
our innovation here in the United States to become energy independent.
We have vast resources, whether it's oil shale in the Rocky Mountain
west, whether it's tar sands in our neighboring Canada, in order to
harvest oil out of those areas. We must do it, though. The American
people are paying close to $4 at the pumps, and that's unacceptable.
And I think, beyond that, when it comes to energy, we need an American
solution, an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation,
not beholden to the Saudi royal family.
I call on this Congress to act, to streamline the regulation process
so we can get new refineries online, to open up new areas of
exploration. That's what we should be doing, not simply debating this
resolution, but working on real, substantive issues the American people
need and desire.
[[Page H4917]]
My constituents in western North Carolina demand action when it comes
to lowering gas prices. And this Congress can do something about it,
but we have to open up new areas of exploration, we have to increase
refining capacity, and we have to invest in renewable energy sources
that are clean, efficient, and American solutions that make us self-
reliant.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to
how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 3 minutes.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I would like to yield 2\1/2\
minutes to Mr. DeFazio to respond to the last presenter.
Mr. DeFAZIO. There are 36.9 billion reasons why we aren't doing more
to protect consumers today, why we haven't filed the complaints against
OPEC, why the Republicans voted against investigating collusion by
OPEC, why the Republicans created loopholes in energy trading so that
Enron could get rich--well, they went bankrupt, actually, but others
can speculate in the market, driving up gas 50 cents a gallon today.
And they don't want to close that loophole because their rich buddies
benefit from it, just like their rich buddies in the oil industry
benefit from the lack of supply.
But I was shocked to hear the gentleman talk about needing to loosen
up regulations in order to get more refinery capacity. A few years ago,
George Bush offered to let any oil company that wanted to build a new
refinery build it on a closed military base and waive all the
environmental laws. How many takers did he get? Big goose egg, zero,
none.
What did the head of Exxon Mobil say just 2 weeks ago? We're not
interested in building refineries; we're doing just fine the way things
are. They are restraining, and they have restrained over the last
decade, refinery capacity in collusion to drive up the price. It's yet
another excuse to drive up the price.
So they don't want to build refineries and give relief to the
American consumers. They don't want us to take on the collusion of OPEC
because they're making money off of it. They don't want us to stop the
speculation in the commodities market because Big Oil and big Wall
Street are making money off it.
And then they want to shift to this fatuous debate about ANWR. They
know exactly how much oil is there, unlike anybody else in the world
except the one company that drilled the one proprietary well 25 years
ago, they're the only people who know if there is or isn't anything
there. But we do know underneath the former National Petroleum Reserve,
set aside by a much more far-sighted administration 70 years ago, there
is a sea of oil underneath the National Petroleum Reserve. And Bill
Clinton leased that to the oil industry because they were carping about
the need for new places to go and drill for oil. Bill Clinton has been
gone 7\1/2\ years. How many producing wells are there in the Naval
Petroleum Reserve? Goose egg, zero, same as the number of new
refineries, goose egg, zero, because they're making huge profits the
way it is. Why should they give relief to the American consumers
because relief means lower extortionate profits for them. They have no
intention of giving relief to the American people. This is a red
herring.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I appreciate the
opportunity to respond to my colleague and his utter fabrication about
the history.
Now, talk about rewriting history here; instead of complaining about
the problem, we're offering solutions. And I'm proud that I'm part of
the solution. And that solution is to hold the oil companies
accountable. That's right, the gentleman is right about that. But I
think we have to go a step further. We have to make sure that
refineries can get online. The reason why they won't build new
refineries is that regulation that this Congress supports, the trial
lawyers as well, and the extreme environmental community that fund the
left, and my colleagues on the left, they're all about shutting down
new refinery capacity.
Beyond that, my colleague that just spoke is not for any exploration
in this country whatsoever. And the American people know this, Mr.
Speaker. The American people know that we need more supply of energy,
and that will bring prices lower, not this rewriting of history that my
colleague just issued.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds
to the gentleman to respond, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady.
First off, it was the head of ExxonMobil, the most profitable
industry in the history of the world, who said he has no intention of
building a refinery. He didn't mention regulations or bureaucracy. He
said they're doing just fine the way it is, why would they build
another refinery? And other CEOs of oil companies have said the same
thing.
It's not bureaucracy or regulation. They didn't take Bush up on his
loophole to put it on closed military bases. So that's not the issue.
Don't try that stuff.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
The gentleman from Oregon is a very good speaker and knowledgeable.
He's been here a long, long time. He said there are a thousand reasons
why we're out of energy and why we're in the situation we're in. I will
say maybe there's two less. You just take these two, though, out of
that thousand, I don't know how many he has left. But when we talk
about who's furnishing fossil fuels, and who's furnishing nuclear
energy, who's furnishing clean coal, who's furnishing solar. And no one
has objected to this or no one has said it's not so, 91 percent of the
House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of
American-made oil and gas, while 86 percent of the House Democrats have
historically voted against increasing the production of American-made
oil and gas. I don't know where the other thousand are, but that's the
major reason we're where we are today.
They don't want to drill here. They won't let us drill off the coast
of Florida. They don't want to drill up in ANWR. Let me tell you
something, we better be drilling on American soil or we're going to
have to send our American boys to take some energy away from someone.
And that would be an absolute crime when we have plenty right here at
home. It's a shame we don't use our own.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say
that what we're really discussing is the House Concurrent Resolution
366, making science and math and technology education a priority. And I
now would like to ask my colleagues to support and pass this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res
366.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________